BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label OSHA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OSHA. Show all posts
24 January 2014
14 July 2012
Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses, Government Documents Show 2JUL12
mitt romney invested in, through bain capital (after he allegedly left bain in 1999) and profited from his investments in stericycle, a company that disposed of aborted fetuses. That makes him a liar and a hypocrite as outlined in the article below from Mother Jones.....(there is a lot more on romney and bain on my page mitt romney & bain capital http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6156607164032733669#editor/target=page;pageID=3505524439866205426
Earlier this year, Mitt Romney nearly landed in a politically perilous controversy when the Huffington Post reported
that in 1999 the GOP presidential candidate had been part of an
investment group that invested $75 million in Stericycle, a
medical-waste disposal firm that has been attacked by anti-abortion
groups for disposing aborted fetuses collected from family planning
clinics. Coming during the heat of the GOP primaries, as Romney tried to
sell South Carolina Republicans on his pro-life bona fides, the
revelation had the potential to damage the candidate's reputation among
values voters already suspicious of his shifting position on abortion.
But Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney founded, tamped down the controversy. The company said Romney left the firm in February 1999 to run the troubled 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and likely had nothing to with the deal. The matter never became a campaign issue. But documents filed by Bain and Stericycle with the Securities and Exchange Commission—and obtained by Mother Jones—list Romney as an active participant in the investment. And this deal helped Stericycle, a company with a poor safety record, grow, while yielding tens of millions of dollars in profits for Romney and his partners. The documents—one of which was signed by Romney—also contradict the official account of Romney's exit from Bain.
The Stericycle deal—the abortion connection aside—is relevant because of questions regarding the timing of Romney's departure from the private equity firm he founded. Responding to a recent Washington Post story reporting that Bain-acquired companies outsourced jobs, the Romney campaign insisted that Romney exited Bain in February 1999, a month or more before Bain took over two of the companies named in the Post's article. The SEC documents undercut that defense, indicating that Romney still played a role in Bain investments until at least the end of 1999.
Here's what happened with Stericycle. In November 1999, Bain Capital and Madison Dearborn Partners, a Chicago-based private equity firm, filed with the SEC a Schedule 13D, which lists owners of publicly traded companies, noting that they had jointly purchased $75 million worth of shares in Stericycle, a fast-growing player in the medical-waste industry. (That April, Stericycle had announced plans to buy the medical-waste businesses of Browning Ferris Industries and Allied Waste Industries.) The SEC filing lists assorted Bain-related entities that were part of the deal, including Bain Capital (BCI), Bain Capital Partners VI (BCP VI), Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors (a Bermuda-based Bain affiliate), and Brookside Capital Investors (a Bain offshoot). And it notes that Romney was the "sole shareholder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of BCI, BCP VI Inc., Brookside Inc. and Sankaty Ltd."
And these documents challenge Romney's claim that he left Bain Capital in early 1999.
But Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney founded, tamped down the controversy. The company said Romney left the firm in February 1999 to run the troubled 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and likely had nothing to with the deal. The matter never became a campaign issue. But documents filed by Bain and Stericycle with the Securities and Exchange Commission—and obtained by Mother Jones—list Romney as an active participant in the investment. And this deal helped Stericycle, a company with a poor safety record, grow, while yielding tens of millions of dollars in profits for Romney and his partners. The documents—one of which was signed by Romney—also contradict the official account of Romney's exit from Bain.
The Stericycle deal—the abortion connection aside—is relevant because of questions regarding the timing of Romney's departure from the private equity firm he founded. Responding to a recent Washington Post story reporting that Bain-acquired companies outsourced jobs, the Romney campaign insisted that Romney exited Bain in February 1999, a month or more before Bain took over two of the companies named in the Post's article. The SEC documents undercut that defense, indicating that Romney still played a role in Bain investments until at least the end of 1999.
Here's what happened with Stericycle. In November 1999, Bain Capital and Madison Dearborn Partners, a Chicago-based private equity firm, filed with the SEC a Schedule 13D, which lists owners of publicly traded companies, noting that they had jointly purchased $75 million worth of shares in Stericycle, a fast-growing player in the medical-waste industry. (That April, Stericycle had announced plans to buy the medical-waste businesses of Browning Ferris Industries and Allied Waste Industries.) The SEC filing lists assorted Bain-related entities that were part of the deal, including Bain Capital (BCI), Bain Capital Partners VI (BCP VI), Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors (a Bermuda-based Bain affiliate), and Brookside Capital Investors (a Bain offshoot). And it notes that Romney was the "sole shareholder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of BCI, BCP VI Inc., Brookside Inc. and Sankaty Ltd."
The
document also states that Romney "may be deemed to share voting and
dispositive power with respect to" 2,116,588 shares of common stock in
Stericycle "in his capacity as sole shareholder" of the Bain entities
that invested in the company. That was about 11 percent of the
outstanding shares of common stock. (The whole $75 million investment
won Bain, Romney, and their partners 22.64 percent of the firm's
stock—the largest bloc among the firm's owners.) The original copy of
the filing was signed by Romney.
Another SEC document filed November 30, 1999, by Stericycle also names Romney as an individual who holds "voting and dispositive power" with respect to the stock owned by Bain. If Romney had fully retired from the private equity firm he founded, why would he be the only Bain executive named as the person in control of this large amount of Stericycle stock?
But the company had its woes, accumulating a troubling safety record along the way. In 1991, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited its Arkansas operation for 11 workplace safety violations. The facility had not provided employees with sufficient protective gear, and it had kept body parts, fetuses, and dead experimental animals in unmarked storage containers, placing workers at risk. In 1995, Stericycle was fined $3.3 million—later decreased to $800,000—by Rhode Island for knowingly exposing workers to life-threatening diseases at its medical-waste treatment facility in Woonsocket. Two years later, workers at another of its medical-waste processing plants in Morton, Washington, were exposed to tuberculosis. In 2002 and 2003—after Bain and its partners had bought their major interest in the firm—Stericycle reached settlements with the attorneys general in Arizona and Utah after it was accused of violating antitrust laws. It paid Arizona $320,000 in civil penalties and lawyers' fees, and paid Utah $580,000.
Despite the firm's regulatory run-ins, the deal worked out well for Bain. In 2001, the Bain-Madison Dearborn partnership that had invested in the company sold 40 percent of its holdings in Stericycle for about $88 million—marking a hefty profit on its original investment of $75 million. The Bain-related group sold the rest of its holdings by 2004. By that point it had earned $49.5 million. It was not until six years later that anti-abortion activists would target Stericycle for collecting medical waste at abortion clinics. This campaign has compared Stericycle to German firms that provided assistance to the Nazis during the Holocaust. A Stericycle official told Huffington Post that its abortion clinics business constitutes a "small" portion of its total operations. (Stericycle declined a request for comment from Mother Jones.)
But the document Romney signed related to the Stericycle deal did identify him as a participant in that particular deal and the person in charge of several Bain entities. (Did Bain and Romney file a document with the SEC that was not accurate?) Moreover, in 1999, Bain and Romney both described his departure from Bain not as a resignation and far from absolute. On February 12, 1999, the Boston Herald reported, "Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions." And a Bain press release issued on July 19, 1999, noted that Romney was "currently on a part-time leave of absence"—and quoted Romney speaking for Bain Capital. In 2001 and 2002, Romney filed Massachusetts state disclosure forms noting he was the 100 percent owner of Bain Capital NY, Inc.—a Bain outfit that was incorporated in Delaware on April 13, 1999—two months after Romney's supposed retirement from the firm. A May 2001 filing with the SEC identified Romney as "a member of the Management Committee" of two Bain entities. And in 2007, the Washington Post reported that R. Bradford Malt, a Bain lawyer, said Romney took a "leave of absence" when he assumed the Olympics post and retained sole ownership of the firm for two more years.
All of this undermines Bain's contention that Romney, though he maintained an ownership interest in the firm and its funds, had nothing to do with the firm's activities after February 1999. The Stericycle deal may raise red flags for anti-abortion activists. But it also raises questions about the true timing of Romney's departure from Bain and casts doubt on claims by the company and the Romney campaign that he had nothing to do with Bain business after February 1999.
Another SEC document filed November 30, 1999, by Stericycle also names Romney as an individual who holds "voting and dispositive power" with respect to the stock owned by Bain. If Romney had fully retired from the private equity firm he founded, why would he be the only Bain executive named as the person in control of this large amount of Stericycle stock?
The documents—one of which was signed by
Romney—also call into question the account of Romney's exit from Bain
that the company and the Romney campaign have provided.
Stericycle was a lucrative investment for Romney and Bain. The
company had entered the medical-waste business a decade earlier, when it
took over a food irradiation plant in Arkansas and began zapping
medical waste, rather than strawberries, with radiation. The company
subsequently replaced irradiation with a technology that used
low-frequency radio waves to sterilize medical waste—gowns, masks,
gloves, and other medical equipment—before it was transported to an
incinerator. By mid-1997, Stericycle was the second-largest
medical-waste disposal business in the nation. Two years later, it was
the largest. With 240,000 customers, its operations spanned the United
States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. Fortune ranked it No. 10 on its list of the 100 fastest growing companies in the nation.But the company had its woes, accumulating a troubling safety record along the way. In 1991, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited its Arkansas operation for 11 workplace safety violations. The facility had not provided employees with sufficient protective gear, and it had kept body parts, fetuses, and dead experimental animals in unmarked storage containers, placing workers at risk. In 1995, Stericycle was fined $3.3 million—later decreased to $800,000—by Rhode Island for knowingly exposing workers to life-threatening diseases at its medical-waste treatment facility in Woonsocket. Two years later, workers at another of its medical-waste processing plants in Morton, Washington, were exposed to tuberculosis. In 2002 and 2003—after Bain and its partners had bought their major interest in the firm—Stericycle reached settlements with the attorneys general in Arizona and Utah after it was accused of violating antitrust laws. It paid Arizona $320,000 in civil penalties and lawyers' fees, and paid Utah $580,000.
Despite the firm's regulatory run-ins, the deal worked out well for Bain. In 2001, the Bain-Madison Dearborn partnership that had invested in the company sold 40 percent of its holdings in Stericycle for about $88 million—marking a hefty profit on its original investment of $75 million. The Bain-related group sold the rest of its holdings by 2004. By that point it had earned $49.5 million. It was not until six years later that anti-abortion activists would target Stericycle for collecting medical waste at abortion clinics. This campaign has compared Stericycle to German firms that provided assistance to the Nazis during the Holocaust. A Stericycle official told Huffington Post that its abortion clinics business constitutes a "small" portion of its total operations. (Stericycle declined a request for comment from Mother Jones.)
In 1995, Stericycle was fined by Rhode
Island for knowingly exposing workers to life-threatening diseases at
its medical-waste treatment facility.
In response to questions from Mother Jones, a spokeswoman
for Bain maintained that Romney was not involved in the Stericycle deal
in 1999, saying that he had "resigned" months before the stock purchase
was negotiated. The spokeswoman noted that following his resignation
Romney remained only "a signatory on certain documents," until his
separation agreement with Bain was finalized in 2002. And Bain issued
this statement: "Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital in February
1999. He has had no involvement in the management or investment
activities of Bain Capital, or with any of its portfolio companies
since that time." (The Romney presidential campaign did not respond to
requests for comment.)But the document Romney signed related to the Stericycle deal did identify him as a participant in that particular deal and the person in charge of several Bain entities. (Did Bain and Romney file a document with the SEC that was not accurate?) Moreover, in 1999, Bain and Romney both described his departure from Bain not as a resignation and far from absolute. On February 12, 1999, the Boston Herald reported, "Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions." And a Bain press release issued on July 19, 1999, noted that Romney was "currently on a part-time leave of absence"—and quoted Romney speaking for Bain Capital. In 2001 and 2002, Romney filed Massachusetts state disclosure forms noting he was the 100 percent owner of Bain Capital NY, Inc.—a Bain outfit that was incorporated in Delaware on April 13, 1999—two months after Romney's supposed retirement from the firm. A May 2001 filing with the SEC identified Romney as "a member of the Management Committee" of two Bain entities. And in 2007, the Washington Post reported that R. Bradford Malt, a Bain lawyer, said Romney took a "leave of absence" when he assumed the Olympics post and retained sole ownership of the firm for two more years.
All of this undermines Bain's contention that Romney, though he maintained an ownership interest in the firm and its funds, had nothing to do with the firm's activities after February 1999. The Stericycle deal may raise red flags for anti-abortion activists. But it also raises questions about the true timing of Romney's departure from Bain and casts doubt on claims by the company and the Romney campaign that he had nothing to do with Bain business after February 1999.
01 October 2011
House Republicans' Labor Budget Cuts Rules That Protect Rooftop Workers From Falling, Coal Miners From Coal Dust 30SEP11
FOR those stupid enough to believe the repiglicans and tea-baggers care about working people consider this from HuffPost.....
WASHINGTON -- In addition to blocking President Obama's health care law and slashing funding for job training, the budget plan presented by House Republicans for health and labor programs this week would scuttle several worker safety protections put forth by the Department of Labor.
Among other anti-regulatory measures, the budget would block the department from moving forward with its Injury and Illness Prevention Program, which would require employers to develop written plans to address workplace hazards and reduce worker injuries. Under the Republican plan, no Labor Department funding could be devoted toward the program.
The budget also takes aim at an obscure but notable Labor Department rule intended to reduce the death and maiming of construction workers who labor on rooftops. The department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration had planned to ramp up the enforcement of harness rules for roofers working on residential construction sites, but the Republican plan forbids the agency from doing so, as noted by the public-health blog The Pump Handle.
Another OSHA rule gutted by the bill relates to repetitive-motion injuries. The agency has been developing a rule that will require employers to check a box on agency forms in cases where workers have developed musculoskeletal disorders. Although the rule costs practically nothing and goes primarily toward data collection, the Republican budget forbids it from moving forward.
Although the bill would slightly boost funding for OSHA, it would prevent the agency from carrying out several of its missions, says Justin Feldman, worker health and safety advocate at the watchdog group Public Citizen. Feldman believes the budget is in keeping with Republicans' anti-regulatory zeal, even when the regulations protect workers at little or no cost.
"The Republican platform is 'No regulations are good regulations -- regulations kill jobs,' " Feldman said. "So they're just attacking everything indiscriminately, it seems."
The budget plan would also eliminate the Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, which provides money to train hard-to-reach laborers, such as migrant workers, who toil in high-hazard industries. At the same time, the plan would spike a Labor Department rule that would boost wages for low-paid temporary guest workers who are here on visas. The rule has been strongly opposed by the seafood, forestry, and hospitality industries, which have launched a well-funded lawsuit to fight it.
The money provided for the education and training of migrant and seasonal farmworkers would be slashed in half. David Strauss, Executive Director of the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs, said the cuts would be devastating to his non-profit, which receives all of its funding through the Labor Department. The program helps low-wage agricultural workers in remote areas learn English, earn GEDs, and move on to better-paying jobs.
"To be honest, we're kind of outraged that the House would take this step," Strauss said. "The people who would miss out would be the neediest."
In the realm of mine safety, the budget would prevent the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) from tightening coal dust regulations to curb the number of miners suffering from black lung disease. For over a decade the labor department has been working to lower the amount of respirable coal dust legally allowed in a mine's atmosphere, a move the coal lobby has opposed. The Republican budget would stop any such rule changes in their tracks.
"It's something that's certainly needed," Tony Oppegard, an attorney and mine safety advocate, previously told HuffPost when discussing the MSHA rule. "And the coal industry is crying about it."
In a statement, Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, made no apologies for blocking the rules, saying that the budget plan would help to "invest in people by freeing them from stifling government regulatory burdens that replace productivity with paperwork."
"By spending tax dollars strategically," Rehlberg said, "we can balance critical funding for programs that actually help people and families with the real need to rein in government over-spending."
WASHINGTON -- In addition to blocking President Obama's health care law and slashing funding for job training, the budget plan presented by House Republicans for health and labor programs this week would scuttle several worker safety protections put forth by the Department of Labor.
Among other anti-regulatory measures, the budget would block the department from moving forward with its Injury and Illness Prevention Program, which would require employers to develop written plans to address workplace hazards and reduce worker injuries. Under the Republican plan, no Labor Department funding could be devoted toward the program.
The budget also takes aim at an obscure but notable Labor Department rule intended to reduce the death and maiming of construction workers who labor on rooftops. The department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration had planned to ramp up the enforcement of harness rules for roofers working on residential construction sites, but the Republican plan forbids the agency from doing so, as noted by the public-health blog The Pump Handle.
Another OSHA rule gutted by the bill relates to repetitive-motion injuries. The agency has been developing a rule that will require employers to check a box on agency forms in cases where workers have developed musculoskeletal disorders. Although the rule costs practically nothing and goes primarily toward data collection, the Republican budget forbids it from moving forward.
Although the bill would slightly boost funding for OSHA, it would prevent the agency from carrying out several of its missions, says Justin Feldman, worker health and safety advocate at the watchdog group Public Citizen. Feldman believes the budget is in keeping with Republicans' anti-regulatory zeal, even when the regulations protect workers at little or no cost.
"The Republican platform is 'No regulations are good regulations -- regulations kill jobs,' " Feldman said. "So they're just attacking everything indiscriminately, it seems."
The budget plan would also eliminate the Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, which provides money to train hard-to-reach laborers, such as migrant workers, who toil in high-hazard industries. At the same time, the plan would spike a Labor Department rule that would boost wages for low-paid temporary guest workers who are here on visas. The rule has been strongly opposed by the seafood, forestry, and hospitality industries, which have launched a well-funded lawsuit to fight it.
The money provided for the education and training of migrant and seasonal farmworkers would be slashed in half. David Strauss, Executive Director of the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs, said the cuts would be devastating to his non-profit, which receives all of its funding through the Labor Department. The program helps low-wage agricultural workers in remote areas learn English, earn GEDs, and move on to better-paying jobs.
"To be honest, we're kind of outraged that the House would take this step," Strauss said. "The people who would miss out would be the neediest."
In the realm of mine safety, the budget would prevent the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) from tightening coal dust regulations to curb the number of miners suffering from black lung disease. For over a decade the labor department has been working to lower the amount of respirable coal dust legally allowed in a mine's atmosphere, a move the coal lobby has opposed. The Republican budget would stop any such rule changes in their tracks.
"It's something that's certainly needed," Tony Oppegard, an attorney and mine safety advocate, previously told HuffPost when discussing the MSHA rule. "And the coal industry is crying about it."
In a statement, Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, made no apologies for blocking the rules, saying that the budget plan would help to "invest in people by freeing them from stifling government regulatory burdens that replace productivity with paperwork."
"By spending tax dollars strategically," Rehlberg said, "we can balance critical funding for programs that actually help people and families with the real need to rein in government over-spending."
21 May 2010
Rand Paul: Obama Sounds 'Un-American' For Criticizing BP Over Gulf Oil Spill (VIDEO) 21MAI10
This guy continues to show America what a tea-bagging right wing neo-nazi fascist pig he is. Not only is he a racist (because though he "abhors" racism he will tolerate it in society, do nothing to stop it), he is also against increases in the minimum wage, and against the EPA and OSHA. His comments on Obama and BP show his true colors as being controlled by the greed of the wealthy. BY THE BY, AS A DOCTOR, 50% OF RAND PAUL'S PATIENTS ARE ON MEDICARE BUT HE ISN'T COMPLAINING ABOUT THAT GOVERNMENT AGENCY, THAT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE, IS HE?
In attempting to close the book on his controversial statements about the scope of the Civil Rights Act, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul invited another round of intrigue and critique on an entirely unrelated front.
The Tea Party favorite, in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" on Friday morning, accused the Obama administration of being too tough on BP -- the oil company directly responsible for the massive spill in the Gulf.
"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business," he said. "I've heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it's part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen."
Even BP itself wouldn't go as far as Paul, declining to comment on its relationship with the Obama administration except to say, through spokesperson Mark Salt, that it continues "to work with the government on every aspect of the response."
Substantively, Paul seems to be arguing that sharper regulatory oversight, or legislation that raises BP's liability cap, are both redundant. BP, after all, has pledged to make full payments. And as for future spills, well, "accidents happen."
It's an element of libertarianism that may be ideologically pure but probably doesn't prove all that comforting for those affected by the spill -- or the national Republican Party.
Paul hasn't taken much, if any, money from the oil and gas industry during his run for the Senate (under $8,000 total, according to Center for Responsive Politics). But it should be noted that BP does have major operations in his state.
"Our aluminium business is a non-integrated producer and marketer of rolled aluminium products, headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky, US. Production facilities are located in Logan County, Kentucky, and are jointly owned with Novelis," reads the company's 2009 annual report. "The primary activity of our aluminium business is the supply of aluminium coil to the beverage can business, which it manufactures primarily from recycled aluminium."
In attempting to close the book on his controversial statements about the scope of the Civil Rights Act, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul invited another round of intrigue and critique on an entirely unrelated front.
The Tea Party favorite, in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" on Friday morning, accused the Obama administration of being too tough on BP -- the oil company directly responsible for the massive spill in the Gulf.
"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business," he said. "I've heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it's part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen."
Even BP itself wouldn't go as far as Paul, declining to comment on its relationship with the Obama administration except to say, through spokesperson Mark Salt, that it continues "to work with the government on every aspect of the response."
Substantively, Paul seems to be arguing that sharper regulatory oversight, or legislation that raises BP's liability cap, are both redundant. BP, after all, has pledged to make full payments. And as for future spills, well, "accidents happen."
It's an element of libertarianism that may be ideologically pure but probably doesn't prove all that comforting for those affected by the spill -- or the national Republican Party.
Story continues below
"Our aluminium business is a non-integrated producer and marketer of rolled aluminium products, headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky, US. Production facilities are located in Logan County, Kentucky, and are jointly owned with Novelis," reads the company's 2009 annual report. "The primary activity of our aluminium business is the supply of aluminium coil to the beverage can business, which it manufactures primarily from recycled aluminium."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)